Originally posted by MoeGatesPlease explain to me why not agreeing with our current administrationīs policies means someone hates America. When Clinton (or FDR, or Johnson, or Carter, or whoever) was president, did people who disagreed with them hate America? Some of the things in the 'list of 20' I agree with, some I didnīt. But Iīm really sick of being told Iīm a bad American or donīt love my country because I happen to think the people who run it right now suck.

(edited by MoeGates on 1.8.02 1447)

I'm sick that some people can never find the good in some parts of America.I know people think the people who run it now sucks but everyday its something different that you don't like.

I am immortalI have inside me blood of kingsI have no rival,no man can be my equalSo take me to the future of of your world ---Queen,Princes of the Universe

BucsFan, I think you're missing the point. No one here is saying America has never done anything that other people don't agree with or even resent. Sure, we went into Saudi Arabia and used them as a base to slam a Muslim country, we brought our evil American people and values into the region, etc. But why should *we* think what we did is wrong? And the BIGGEST point of all- even if we DO think it is wrong, NOTHING justifies blowing up thousands of innocent people with jet fuel! I'm sorry, but the ONLY people who deserve blame in a conversation dealing with this are the idiots who pulled it off. That's it, end of discussion! The minute you start with "Yeah, but", you give even .5% of legitimacy to what the terrorists did, and there's no way you can do that. Nothing justifies it at all.

Sure, maybe there are things that American can do differently in the future, but it should only be brought up quietly and should have nothing to do with the discussion of moral blame for 9/11, in my opinion. Also, I'm not sure if "doing things differently" would stop these particular people. It seems to me they hate us period and want us to die. And I don't know how one can find any of kind justification for THAT.

Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard20. We've learned that the tax-cuts provided to the most wealthy are not only payoffs to the corporate sector that provides support for Bush&Co. By locking in those tax cuts for ten years (and with humongous chunks of the budget spent on the "war on terrorism") Bush&Co. have ensured that innumerable social programs that aid the less well-off will be cut or eliminated. In short, a rollback of New Deal/Great Society programs, so hated by the HardRight. (The HardRight movement to detach prescription drugs for seniors fr om the Medicare program, and, especially, to privatize Social Security - even in the face of recent stock-market disasters - is part of this same desire.)

Here are the tax stats for 1999, the most recent ones released.

The Top 5 Percent of Income Earners(those who earn over $120,846 a year) Earn 34% of the income, but pay 55% of the taxes.

The Top 1 Percent($293,415+) earn 19% of the income, but pay over 1/3 of the taxes.

The Bottom Half($26,415 and under) pay *4* percent of the taxes.

How's that for "paying their fair share"?

And about the social programs, out of Neal Boortz's book, "The Terrible Truth About Liberals", here's a good comparison.

The power of the government, according to the Constitution, comes from the "consent of the governed", meaning we should not ask the government to do anything for us we can't do ourselves.

There are 3 apartments on one floor of the building. You live in Apartment 1, Johnson lives in Apartment 2, and Gates lives in Apartment 3.

Johnson lost his job and doesn't the job skills or motivation to work. So.. feeling charitable, you give him $200 out of your bank account. A month later, he needs more money. You don't have so much, so you go to Gates and see if he can help out. He's saving his money, so he tells you he's sorry, but he can't help you. Do you have the right to pull a gun out on him and forcably take his money to help Johnson?

You don't have to agree with Al Queda to think that the U.S. responded the wrong way. And yes, I do think dropping bomb on people that are not involved in that organization is responding the wrong way.

Clinton is liberal? That's why the Green Party nominated him! Do I seriously have to explain why the media is not liberal again? Honestly, rather than just saying "But it is liberal," please come up with some evidence. Please. I'll just point out that if it was so liberal, most cities probably wouldn't need a 2nd, "Liberal" weekly paper.

The nationalistic jingoism on this board has reached disgusting heights. Yes, Oldfuzzybastard was trying to start shit up with his somewhat amusing list, but I can't believe the amount of "You hate America" and "oh, it's not from O'Reilley, so it must be wrong" rhetoric going on here. Criticizing America does not mean hating America. Shit, I'll pull some wrestling in on this. You guys criticize it all the time, yet any of you would get upset when someone says you hate it. Furthermore, one has to appreciate the fact that you can criticize the government in this country, and not get locked up for it. Well, most of the time. Seriously, if criticizing a President is grounds for anti-Americanism, almost everybody here is guilty, with all the Clinton bashing that has gone on. How is it that all of the suddent we have to shut up about it, though? "Things have changed since 9/11?" Ah. I see. I forgot about them changing the Bill of freaking Rights since then. We have a right (I would say a duty) as citizens of this country to criticize our government. More importantly, we have a duty to be informed citizens, and not drop back behind lame as "you hate America" rhetoric.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanNo, but I don't assume everything they do and think is wrong (or that I even understand it) just because they hurt my country.

And Grimis, how are you sure that is all their motivation, or that they aren't justified in hating us? Did you read it in the paper?

(edited by TheBucsFan on 1.8.02 1351)

YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

bin Laden, and those like him, are ON RECORD with their special hatred of Jews, Christians, Americans and generally any sane person. Good Lord, man. There comes a point where everything isn't relative, you know? Not EVERYTHING can be excused.

Why don't you start another thread where we defend Hitler, because, hey, he got beat up in school by a Jewish bully?

The OFFICIAL PAPERS of Egypt and Saudi Arabia routinely bash the US and praise "the 15," i.e., the WTC hijackers. BucsFan, do you really have that much sympathy for countries with official, state-sponsored newspapers?

Go here and read some excerpts from prominent middle Eastern newspapers. The source is a conservative opinion journal, so you can argue all you want with the the author's conclusions, but you can't argue with CITED MATERIALS.

And the media isn't liberal? Maybe it's not SOCIALIST, but it certainly goes easier on the Dems. Here, read this AP article proclaiming Hillary Clinton as a "moderate." And anyone from the Boston area can attest that the Globe loves the left wing.

And here is another NR piecedealing with the general suckitude of the NY Times.

And, lastly: preach on, Kaz. Liberals operate on the premise that if they can come up with what they believe is a better use for it, they can take your money. As a rational man, I disagree. And for jonhunt: Jingoism? Is anyone who supports this country jingoistic? I think those who give ANY consideration to the terrorists are idiots, personally. You don't have to be an anti-Arab racist to realize that Islamic extremism is wrong. You don't have to hate all Germans, either, to realize that Nazism is wrong. And you don't have to hate all Russians to realize Communism is wrong. I could prattle on all day, but I think I've done enough of that already.

And if anyone wants to defend communism, refute this number: 20 Million. (Hint: it's roughly the number of deaths Stalin and communism are responsible for in Russia)

edit: And here's more from our pals at Al-Akhbar. I had to get a copy from another website, as everything else I found was in Arabic. You are welcome, however, to go to www.memri.org for more clippings straight from the horse's mouth.

(edited by PalpatineW on 1.8.02 1709)Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.

To say that the Clinton's are not moderates means that you have no idea what you are talking about. Look, I am not a liberal. I am not concernced about the whole left vs. right dichotomy that everyone is involved in. I am just sickened by the ignorance that seems to run rampant here. Bill Clinton created the middle of the road president. HE CREATED IT!!! Ok? Clinton is not a liberal. If he was, he would not have been the Democrats nomination for President. The Democrats aren't liberals. Therefore, your revelation of a liberal media by showing me an article that calls a spade a spade falls a little flat for me. Do us all a favor and go and read "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian (I think I butchered his last name). Don't be afraid, he is not a liberal. After that, read a basic political science introduction and you will see what a liberal really is.

And socialists are not liberals either.

And why was communism brought up? I don't have to hate all conservative to realize that this a sorry bunch of uninformed conservatives blindly railing against some unknown terror.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanLook, these "terrorists" are mad about something. Who here can tell me exactly what? .....But nobody is bold enough to dig and find out WHY these attacks ACTUALLY happened, because nobody wants to see this country as anything other than a victim.

Beacause they HATE us. They hate our culture. They hate capitalism. They hate the fact that we live in a constitutional republic. They hate the fact that we have the five basic freedoms outline in our First Amendment. They hate the standard of living we have worked hard to acheive.

But they also hate what we do with it. And it goes beyojnd our support for Israel, one of the few democratic regimes in the region. It includes the hegemonic foreign policy of the Clinton administration. In the 1990s we often interferred in the policy of other countries for no reason. Clinton's "Engagement and Enlargement" oftentimes chastised foreign governments for being something other than, well, Americanized.

They hate us. We don't need Sherlock Holmes, Ellery Queen, Leslie Nielsen or a congressional study to figure this one out.

Because they HATE us. Like they just woke up one morning and decided to start up a fucking holy war, threw darts at a map of the world and we just happened to be the country the darts hit. There are REASONS why they hate us, like, say, letting Israel roll into Palestine, take their land, bulldoze their houses and push them into smaller and smaller ghettoes? Does that sound Hitler-esque to anyone besides me? There is a pretty decent article at http://aztlan.net/why.htm that covers direct quotes from Osama himself about why he hates the US.

Heh, that was fun. Whoever said I was just trying to stir up shit pretty much hit the nail right on the head, but this *is* the only place I've found on the Internet where I can get intelligent political discussion going. (Everyplace else is either populated exclusively by people who agree with me, or mindless Internet assholes who can't type three straight sentences without using the word "fag" twelve times. This board has a very rare breed - intelligent thoughtful Republicans.)

With that said:

Let me try to figure out for you exactly where that article came from. I GOT IT from a site called DemocraticUnderground.com (which is, needless to say, a bit one-sided), but that site is mostly just a collection of articles from other sources... Let's see, it was written by someone with the unfortunate (and ironic, considering our locale) name of Bernard Weiner, an American politics professor from Western Washington University and San Fransisco University.

Meaning most of you will call all of his points invalid because he's an "intellectual LIEbral", as the Dittoheads are one to say.

I personally don't agree with the entire list, although I'd say at least fifteen to seventeen of them are right on the money.

I do find it interesting that the same people who can't hear anyone criticize anything this government does means that you HATE America are the same people who second-guessed everything Bill Clinton did for eight years, including when he tried to go after Bin Laden four years ago, I might add.

And I should also add that most "leftists" are even MORE pissed off at our Democratically controlled Congress who've simply rolled over and played dead for everything that King George II and High Lord Ashcroft have demanded. They didn't even READ the fucking PATRIOT Act, for chrissakes. At least you expect the Republicans to fuck you over...

And I still want someone to explain the so-called "liberal media" to me, because I'm at a loss here. And don't just toss "Dan Rather is a liberal!" at me - give me some concrete examples of liberal bias in the majority of the mainstream media. I'm still waiting on that one.

"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."---George Carlin

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music."---Anon.

Originally posted by DMCAnd the BIGGEST point of all- even if we DO think it is wrong, NOTHING justifies blowing up thousands of innocent people with jet fuel!

DMC

Oh, but bombing the shit out of Afghani cities full of women, children and noncombatants was perfectly reasonable. We killed a SHITLOAD more civilians than Al Qaeda did, but the "liberal" media doesn't mention that. Ever. Those lefty scum, always hating the US of A, skipped over a golden opportunity to bash that good ole boy Dubya? Or is it that the media isn't quite as biased as you think? Hmm....

That still isn't a reason to try and hide it. What's more important is that we really didn't have any reason to be bombing them, since it wasn't going to get us Bin Laden or any of the people involved in the attacks.

Originally posted by ICEMANAl Qaeda meant to kill all those civilians,the U.S. really didn't mean to.

Of course we didn't, because the military would never lie to us. Perhaps we didn't mean to kill innocents, but there sure wasn't a whole lot of remorse when we did.

And as for someone earlier in the thread who said liberals hate America and what it stands for, as a card carrying far left wing person, I LOVE America. What I can't stand are the perversions of the American ideal that are put forward oftentimes by the far right. To me there is nothing American about constraining of civil liberties, or the coddling of big corporations, or the monopolizing of the mass media into a select few self-serving conglomerations. But speaking out against these things somehow constitutes "hating America" in the eyes of some people. Well the hell with that. I speak out, I criticize my government, I demand accountability, and I rail against injustice because to me the promise of America is still the greatest notion ever put forward for a country, and the things pointed out in the original post in this thread move us farther away, rather than closer to acheiving that promise as reality.

You never know when you'll meet that special someone... the someone that's mysteriously blind to your flaws. or, you know, stupid enough not to realize that yes, you really are that cynical.

"And I still want someone to explain the so-called "liberal media" to me, because I'm at a loss here. And don't just toss "Dan Rather is a liberal!" at me - give me some concrete examples of liberal bias in the majority of the mainstream media. I'm still waiting on that one."

I can't quote the source, but one statistic I heard a few years ago is that some 85% of the Washington press core votes Democratic. And there are other examples besides Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Mike Wallace, etc. mentioned in this thread. The most recent thing that gets to me is all the recent coverage of the priest sex abuse scandals. If "everyone kinda knew" about this stuff for years, why did the media wait until after 9/11 to say "OH MY GOD sexually abusing priests are on the loose!" (just like they've been doing this summer with the "child kidnappers wave" when everyone know this stuff happens all the time). Could it be because some people didn't like all the criticism their anti-Christian Muslim friends were getting in the press and decided to make some big yellow journalism issue out of the priest thing?

Not to say that the stuff should not have been exposed, but the *timing* is something I think everyone should question, and I don't hear many people questioning it.

As for eviljohn, the point of the war was to get the organization which supported the 9/11 bombers, not to just get one man. And to do that, innocent people had to die. That's just what war does. If you don't like it, and if someone else wants to hear an apology, then here you go: SORRY. But that's war, and that's life.

Originally posted by ICEMANAl Qaeda meant to kill all those civilians,the U.S. really didn't mean to.

OH, GET THE FUCK OUT OF TOWN!

I'm sure those pilots had no idea that dropping high-yield explosives into an urban area would kill civilians as well as soldiers and terrorists.

Pilot: "Oh, man, I thought we were dropping those new-issue smart bombs that differentiated between soldiers and civilians! What do you mean those don't exist, Sar'nt? I killed a civilian? Oh, God I didn't mean to!"

Where's the yellow journalism? And where's the statistic that says 85% of the washington press core hates christians (catholics specifically) and loves Muslims and terrorists? You're just speculating there man.

Also, what the fuck is up with partisanship? Why can't most of us try to leave preconcieved notions at the door and try and talk about things a little more rationally and a little less emotionally? Not even just here, but in the whole fucking world. I mean, Boromirmark I can understand. He's 19, he's conservative, and he thinks liberals should die. I know some liberal kids who think all conservatives want to do is screw them, the environment, and everybody. I think both Boromir and my friends just haven't bothered to meet people who think differently yet, but some of you are much older. Why so much stubbornness to open your eyes and ears?

Is consorting with the enemy that bad?

-JagYeah, if you had to ask, I have liberal views. But on the actual political spectrum? I'm so fed up with people being assholes to each other, I'd rather go start my own country.

"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

I've seen that 85% number in a textbook for a policital science or communications class back in the day, so I know it exists, but it doesn't mean anything. It's also outdated now, as one of the links that I always have to throw up shows.

We tried to obliterate the people that killed thousands of civilans they just happened to be hiding in the mountains and towns of Afghanistan.In any war there are major possibilities of civilian casualties.Especially when they are hiding who knows where.

It's amazing how you view a lot of the U.S. does as wrong but we are supposed to be right about war.

(edited by ICEMAN on 1.8.02 1737)

I am immortalI have inside me blood of kingsI have no rival,no man can be my equalSo take me to the future of of your world ---Queen,Princes of the Universe

Eviljohn, the Taliban actively hid the terrorists in their country. Also, please recall that we asked (rather, demanded) that they hand over Al Qaeda. They thumbed their noses. Don't you think they have even a *smigen* of responsibility given that?

Also, Catholics may be largely Democratic (although I predict we may start seeing a change in that demographic) but many if not a majority still hold to conservative values when it comes to major social issues and thus still bring the liberal media's scorn. Look I'm not trying to make some major argument and go out of my way to prove this point, I'm just bringing up a suggestion that I haven't heard anyone else talk about. If priests have been abusing young alter boys for years, why make such a big deal of it *now*?

Voting one way does not mean you can't do your job unless you define what it is to "do your job." If it means to present a totally fair and unbiased account of something, I have doubts that ANYONE can do that when it comes to ANYTHING, for everyone has a bias, but I have even more serious doubts that a group of people who largely lean towards one end of the political spectrum can do it either.

The thing that doesn't make sense, then, is this. If Saddam was being a good boy for all those years, why did he keep denying access to UN inspectors? His actions were those of a man with something to hide.